Did you read the next sentence? The next sentence is ” (note, this is not exactly how I feel about Yudkowsky, I don’t think he’s knowingly dishonest, but I just thought it was a good quote and partially represents my attitude towards Yudkowsky).” The reason I included the quote was that it expressed how I feel about Yud minus the lying part—every time I examine one of his claims in detail, it almost always turns out false, often egregiously so.
I don’t think that arguments about whether animals are conscious are value questions. They are factual questions—do animals have experience. Is there something it’s like to be them?
I would have to agree with the parent, why present your writing in such a way that is almost guaranteed to turn away, or greatly increase the skepticism of, serious readers?
A von-Neumann-like character might have been able to get away with writing in this kind of style, and still present some satisfactory piece, but hardly anyone less competent.
It is some months later so I am writing this with the benefit of hindsight, but it seems almost self-negating.
Especially since a large portion of the argument rests on questions regarding Yudowsky’s personal writing style, character, personality, world view, etc., which therefore draw into sharp contrasts the same attributes of any writer calling those out.
i.e. even if every claim regarding Yudowsky’s personal failings turns out to be 100% true, that would still require someone somewhat better in those respects to actually gain the sympathy of the audience.
They are factual questions—do animals have experience.
They are factual questions about high-level concepts (in physicalism, of course) and high-level concepts depend on values—without values even your experiences at one place are not the same things as your experiences in another place.
Did you read the next sentence? The next sentence is ” (note, this is not exactly how I feel about Yudkowsky, I don’t think he’s knowingly dishonest, but I just thought it was a good quote and partially represents my attitude towards Yudkowsky).” The reason I included the quote was that it expressed how I feel about Yud minus the lying part—every time I examine one of his claims in detail, it almost always turns out false, often egregiously so.
I don’t think that arguments about whether animals are conscious are value questions. They are factual questions—do animals have experience. Is there something it’s like to be them?
I would have to agree with the parent, why present your writing in such a way that is almost guaranteed to turn away, or greatly increase the skepticism of, serious readers?
A von-Neumann-like character might have been able to get away with writing in this kind of style, and still present some satisfactory piece, but hardly anyone less competent.
It is some months later so I am writing this with the benefit of hindsight, but it seems almost self-negating.
Especially since a large portion of the argument rests on questions regarding Yudowsky’s personal writing style, character, personality, world view, etc., which therefore draw into sharp contrasts the same attributes of any writer calling those out.
i.e. even if every claim regarding Yudowsky’s personal failings turns out to be 100% true, that would still require someone somewhat better in those respects to actually gain the sympathy of the audience.
I didn’t attack his character, I said he was wrong about lots of things.
Did you skim or skip over reading most of the comment?
They are factual questions about high-level concepts (in physicalism, of course) and high-level concepts depend on values—without values even your experiences at one place are not the same things as your experiences in another place.